Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
Prakash And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Vandana "Sree Mandiram" And Ors. – Respondents
CRL.MC NO. 415 OF 2015
Decided On : 19-07-2024
DEFAMATION - PRIVATE COMPLAINT UNDER IPC - Sections 499, 500 IPC; Section 199 Cr.P.C. - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC concerning defamation, emphasizing that a complaint can only be filed by a 'person aggrieved' as per Section 199 of the Cr.P.C. The court interpreted 'person aggrieved' to include individuals who feel hurt by defamatory statements, even if they are not the directly defamed party. The court concluded that discussing a book in the public domain does not constitute defamation, as it falls under the freedom of speech and fair comment, thus influencing the decision to quash the complaint against the media petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, media personnel, were accused of defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC for airing a program discussing a book that made serious allegations against Mata Amritanandamayi. The complainant, a devotee, claimed defamation due to the program's content, which she argued harmed her reputation as a devotee.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant did not have a valid claim under Section 199 Cr.P.C. as she was not the aggrieved party in a legal sense. The court emphasized that the discussion of a book available in the public domain by the media was a fair comment and protected under freedom of speech.
Issues: Whether the complainant qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' under Section 199 Cr.P.C. and whether the airing of the program constituted defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a complaint for defamation must be filed by a person who is legally aggrieved, and that discussing a book in the public domain does not amount to defamation, as it is protected speech. The court also noted that the complainant's failure to pursue action against the book's author undermined her claims.
Final Decision: The court quashed all proceedings against the petitioners in CC No. 1618/2014, ruling that the complaint was not maintainable.
ORDER :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3 in CC No. 1618/2014 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karunagappally. It is a private complaint filed by the 1st respondent alleging offences punishable under Secs. 499 and 500 IPC. Annexure-I is the certified copy of the complaint.
2. The allegation in Annexure-I complaint briefly is like this : The petitioner No.1, who is the 2nd accused in the case is the Executive Editor of Reporter Channel and the 2nd petitioner, who is the 3rd accused in the case is the Director and Chief Editor of Reporter Channel. The petitioners aired a program “Big Story” on 18.02.2014, wherein the contents of a book published by a foreigner against Mata Amritanandamayi was the topic of discussion. According to the 1st respondent, she is an ardent devotee of Mata Amritanandamayi and she was able to conceive through the blessings of the said personality. The 1st accused in the case made imputations to the effect that the Amritanandamayi Math is a source point of sex, black money, gold and narcotics in respect of which he has obtained an anonymous letter. The imputations of the 1st accused, Rishi Kumar indicate that the complainant was impregnated by persons of the Mata Amritanandamayi's Ashram other than her husband and thereby, she has been defamed. The allegations against the petitioners are contained from paragraph 5 of the complaint onwards. It is stated in the complaint that the 1st petitioner made an opening remark regarding the publication of a book by one Gail Tredwell against Mata Amritanandamayi Amma. The 1st petitioner had detailed the contents of the book written by Gail Tredwell and made clear that the allegations of Treadwell are true. He has, therefore, defamed Mata Amritanandamayi and Ashram is the case of the complainant. The 1st petitioner also criticized godman and godwoman in the light of the revelations of Gail Tredwell and warned that the people of Kerala should be more cautious. Hence, it is alleged that the 2nd accused had dented the image of Mata Amritanandamayi and the Ashram. The 2nd petitioner, who is the 3rd accused being the Director and Chief Editor of the Reporter Channel, had carefully edited the above program and thereby, the accused had committed the offence mentioned is the further allegation. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioners and the 1st accused committed the offences punishable under Sec. 500 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the petitioners, even if the entire allegations in Annexure-I complaint are accepted, no offence under Sec. 500 of the IPC is made out and therefore, the continuation of Annexure-I complaint is an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Even though notice is issued to the 1st respondent, there is no appearance.
4. The counsel for the petitioners raised two contentions. The 1st contention is that the 1st respondent will not come within the purview of “some person aggrieved by the offence” mentioned in Sec. 199 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. The 2nd contention of the petitioners is that even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioners. It is also contended by the petitioners that the book of Gail Tredwell is available in the market. It is in the public domain and is available even in Amazon. Therefore, it is submitted that a discussion made on a book, which is in the public domain will not attract the offence under Sec.500 IPC.
5. I will consider the 1st contention regarding the maintainability of the complaint, based on Sec. 199 Cr.P.C. Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code deals with defamation. Sec. 500 IPC is about the punishment for defamation. Sec. 199 Cr.P.C. says that no court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code except upon a complaint
A complaint for defamation under IPC must be filed by a legally aggrieved person, and discussing publicly available material does not constitute defamation, as it is protected under the right to free....
A lack of governmental consent under Section 196(2) Cr.P.C. does not bar prosecution for defamation offences, emphasizing the media's role in reporting on public matters.
(1) Defamation – ”BJP” is a determinate and identifiable body and complaint for defamation under Section 500 IPC is maintainable.(2) Defamation – Right of a person against whom offence of defamation ....
The publication of defamatory statements without substantiation violates the rights of the affected person, and intention or knowledge regarding reputational harm suffices for establishing defamation....
The judgment establishes the importance of specific averments in a complaint, compliance with the mandatory provisions of Cr.P.C., and the necessity of conducting an inquiry before issuing process.
To establish defamation under IPC, there must be evidence directly linking the accused to the publication and an intention to cause harm, which was lacking in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
